clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 89   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

KEIGHLER VS. NICHOLSON. 89
In this report referred to, which was filed in the Superior Court
on the 6th of January, 1853, the amount of money in the hands
of the respondent is stated, and the sources from which derived,
and the charges to which the trustee supposed it to be subject,
and it concludes with expressing a desire that the trust should be
administered under the supervision of the said court, and prays
that notice to the creditors of Betts may be given preparatory
to a distribution. Upon this report the Superior Court, passed
an order directing notice to be given accordingly to the credi-
tors, on or before a day therein limited.
The deed from Betts to Ward referred to, and filed with his
answer, bears date the 29th of January, 1851, and conveys to
Ward, in trust, four policies of insurance, and the moneys to be
recovered upon them. The deed recites that suits were then
depending upon them in the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Maryland district, and the trusts are:
1st, that the trustee shall apply the money, when received, to
the payment of necessary expenses, including counsel fees, as
agreed with the attorneys. 2nd, to the payment of commis-
sions to the trustee. 3rd, to the payment of $3,000, with
interest from the 2d of December, then last past, to Richardson,
Watson & Co., of New York, and the residue to divide, without
preference, among all the other creditors of said Betts who may
come in and release, as hereinafter stated, according to their
respective claims, provided that each of said creditors receiving
a dividend under the deed should, at the time of receipt,
execute and deliver to said Betts a sufficient release in full of
his demand, and in case of refusal of any of said creditors so
to release the distributive share of the party so refusing, to be
divided proportionably among the assenting creditors.
Shortly before, and during the argument, Mr. Ward moved
to quash the sequestration, so far as it related to him, upon the
ground, among others, that he has no property or effects of said
Betts in his hands, bound by the writ, and had none such when
it was issued to which Betts had any claim. And the first ques-
tion presented is, whether the deed from Betts to Ward, before
mentioned, is so utterly and absolutely void as to subject the

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 89   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives